Regulation and Net Neutrality
|
|
- Randolph Charles
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Regulation and Net Neutrality Michael Kotrous* JEL Codes: L43, L90, L14 Keywords: Regulation, Market Structure, Net Neutrality Abstract: This paper seeks to inform the network neutrality debate by looking at the role existing government regulation has played in shaping the market for broadband access. Prior research has concluded that network externalities that exist in the market for broadband services justify government intervention (Economides and Tag, 2012). This literature takes limited competition among broadband providers as given rather than questioning why competition is limited in the first place. I argue here that limited competition among broadband providers is not the result of a market failure but rather stems from barriers to entry erected by government regulation, notably municipal rights-of-way. The key to improving consumer welfare is therefore not to impose additional regulations on broadband providers, but to clear the way for capital investments in the expansion of new infrastructure and the improvement of existing infrastructure by removing existing regulatory barriers to entry. I conclude that deregulation rather than more regulation would improve Internet access and result in a more level playing field for all content providers. * Creighton University, Institute for Economic Inquiry, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, MichaelKotrous@creighton.edu
2 In the past few months, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received nearly 4 million public comments on its proposed revisions of its "Open Internet" rules, also known as "network neutrality" (Gayomoli, Nov. 10, 2014). Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic be treated equally (FCC, Open Internet ). President Obama recently added comment to the subject in a statement issued on Nov. 10, He called for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a public utility, which would subject Internet service providers to greater government oversight, including network neutrality rules (Gayomoli, Nov. 10, 2014). The president s statement highlights the main line of argument provided by the regulation s advocates: network neutrality prevents Internet providers, which have monopoly power in the regions they serve, from extracting rents from content providers and Internet consumers to the detriment of both. Network neutrality advocates raise two main concerns about the current practices of broadband providers with monopoly status. The first is that broadband providers will erect barriers that reduce the innovation of Internet content by charging content providers to access their networks of subscribers. Forcing website and application developers to pay a so-called toll to reach consumers is a practice that regulators fear will favor incumbent content providers like Google and hamper innovation by newcomers to the market. The second concern is anticompetitive behavior by broadband providers in which broadband providers throttle or, in extreme cases, completely block the online services of competitors. Such an extreme case of anticompetitive behavior has required government intervention in North Carolina. A telecommunications firm named Madison River blocked its Internet subscribers from accessing VoIP services like Vonage in an effort to protect its telephone services from Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 2
3 online competitors. In 2005, Madison River paid a $15,000 fine to the FCC and agreed to stop its discriminatory network management policies (McCullagh, Mar. 3, 2005). Business practices like those by Madison River raise great concern, and justifiably so. The discrimination of data by broadband providers purely for the purposes of raising profits is of great detriment to consumers and content providers. Extortions of rent from consumers and content providers can only be sustained in a market in which broadband providers either do not face sufficient competition or collude with competitors to increase profits. The diagnosis of the problem with the Internet lack of competition among broadband providers is correct; the proposed solution of network neutrality rules is incorrect. This paper examines the forces that have shaped the market of Internet service to its current state of limited competition among broadband providers. Previous economic literature on network externalities that affect the supply of Internet content and the demand for Internet access provide support for network neutrality regulation (Lee and Wu, 2009; Economides and Tag, 2012), but these papers assume limited competition for broadband services instead of questioning why competition is restricted in the first place. My research finds that government regulation has stifled competition among broadband providers. The solution to correcting the losses in consumer welfare in this heavily regulated market is not the enforcement of network neutrality regulation but rather deregulation of the construction of Internet infrastructure. My paper begins with a review of network neutrality and the previous economic literature that analyzes the Internet as a two-sided market with considerable network externalities. I then consider the role government regulation has had in establishing Internet providers as monopolies before giving my concluding remarks. Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 3
4 The Changing State of Network Neutrality The network neutrality principle dictates broadband providers make a best effort to transmit data on their networks on a first-come, first-served basis (Brito and Ellig). It has guided the activities of content and broadband providers since the origin of the Internet. Without coercion by government rule-making, broadband providers have sustained neutral network management policies for many years, even past the turn of the century (Becker et. al, 2010). The current push for legally enforceable network neutrality regulation is motivated by a growing concern that insufficient competition among broadband providers will result in market failure (Becker et. al, 2010; Hahn and Wallsten, 2006). Figures 1 through 3, below, show the limited amounts of competition among wired broadband providers, especially in areas outside major metropolitan areas. Figure 1: The areas highlighted in green represent areas with between one and six wired broadband connections available (source: NTIA and FCC, Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 4
5 Figure 2: The areas with between two and six wired broadband providers available (source: NTIA and FCC, Figure 3: The areas with between three and six wired broadband providers available (source: NTIA and FCC, Without competition, consumer advocates and regulatory watchdogs fear broadband providers will change their network management policies to extract increased profits from consumers and/or content providers at the detriment of both (Becker et. al, 2010). Evidence of these shifts in the market has already appeared. Recent agreements made between content providers and broadband providers suggest the network neutrality principle that governed the Internet for decades has come undone. Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 5
6 For instance, the online video streaming service Netflix came to terms with Comcast on a deal for data prioritization in February 2014 (Wyatt and Cohen, Feb. 23, 2014). Figure 4 shows a sharp uptick in Netflix download speeds for Comcast subscribers after the deal was reached. Network neutrality advocates likened this situation to the Madison River case and saw Comcast s demand for Netflix to pay for improved service as an extortion of rent by a firm with too great market power (The Washington Post, Apr ). Figure 4: The bold line shows the steady decline leading up to and the sharp uptick in Netflix download speeds for Comcast subscribers following a deal between Netflix and Comcast in which Netflix paid for data prioritization, which is seen as a violation of network neutrality principles (source: The Washington Post, Apr. 25, 2014). The proposed rules under consideration by the FCC aim to prevent future extortions of rent. Network neutrality rules effectively act as a price regulation preventing broadband providers from collecting fees from content providers for access to broadband subscribers (Hahn and Wallsten, 2006). One provision of network neutrality regulation is the no-blocking rule: broadband providers are not allowed to Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 6
7 block or throttle (slow down) any packets on the basis of what the content is or from which content provider data comes. All content providers must be guaranteed a minimum level of access that is sufficiently robust, fast and dynamic for effective use by end users [consumers] and edge [content] providers (FCC, Open Internet NPRM, May 15, 2014). In addition, proposed network neutrality regulation dictates broadband providers cannot accept a premium payment from content providers for prioritization of their data, described in the rhetoric as a so-called fast lane (FCC, Open Internet NPRM, May 15, 2014). The economic justification provided for network neutrality rules relates to the fact that the Internet is a two-sided market, in which Internet providers act as middle men between content providers and consumers. Lee and Wu (2009) explain that Internet access, like other two-sided markets, is greatly benefited by positive network externalities. Setting to zero the price broadband providers can charge content providers for access to their last mile connections allows for increased entry for content providers into the market, which leads to increased innovation in online content and applications. Due to the network externality, improvements in online content increase the demand for Internet access. This network externality is easily observed in the growing number of consumers cutting the cable and choosing to subscribe to online streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. Lee and Wu (2009), as well as Economides and Tag (2012), suggest broadband providers maintaining neutral network management policies improves consumer welfare by promoting innovation among content providers. However, the very innovation network neutrality advocates are seeking to protect has grown the demand for Internet access to the point at which neutral network management policies of broadband providers are no longer financially viable nor best Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 7
8 for consumers (Becker et. al, 2010). The number of Americans using the Internet has increased 18 percent between 2007 and 2012, after accounting for total population growth during that time (NTIA, 2014). In addition, individuals have increased the amount of Internet content they consume. Over 60 percent of peak-time data is highquality streaming audio or video (FCC, Remarks by Chairmen Wheeler, Sept. 4, 2014). Another report has indicated video streaming services Netflix and YouTube, which is owned by Google, represent 50 percent of peak-hour traffic (Spangler, Nov. 11, 2013). The increased use of streaming video and audio services that require greater amounts of bandwidth makes much of the Internet infrastructure incapable of satisfying consumer demand. Figure 5 shows that the number of providers available to consumers decreases as speeds increase. Figure 5: The amount of competition between broadband providers decreases as the speeds provided increase. Facilitating the construction of better infrastructure by new entrants to the market, like Google Fiber, will work to increase competition at the faster speeds consumers demand (source: Federal Communications Commission, Prepared Remarks by Chairman Wheeler, Sept. 4, 2014). Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 8
9 Consumers have sufficient choice for broadband at slower speeds of 4 Mbps and 10 Mbps but almost no choice for providers of the speeds they require to satisfy their increased consumption of Internet content. In fact, 74.7 percent of households have either zero or one broadband provider capable of delivering 25 Mbps download speeds. Only under such conditions can the observed anticompetitive practices be continued. Great increases in the demand for Internet content have made capital investments in the expansion of broadband access and the improvement of existing infrastructure critical to continued innovation by content providers and the betterment of consumer welfare. Facilitating the construction of better infrastructure by new entrants to the market, like Google Fiber, will work to increase competition at the faster speeds consumers demand. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler describes facilitating improvements in infrastructure as a virtuous cycle: the better the available broadband performance, the more that edge providers will take advantage of that performance with new applications, which in turn will drive more investment to meet that demand for next-generation broadband (FCC, Remarks by Chairman Wheeler, Sept. 4, 2014). The next section of this paper focuses on government regulation that restricts the improvement of Internet infrastructure. The Nature of Broadband Monopolies Firms providing broadband service exist in a market heavily regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission (Brito and Ellig). In comments to the FCC, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) wrote, The current patchwork of federal, state, and local municipal regulations slows down the application review process, delays the build out of infrastructure, and increases the associated network costs (FCC, Reply Comments, Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 9
10 Sept. 30, 2011). Regulations at the federal level that limit broadband providers include spectrum licensing, including the 22 MHz radio spectrum auctioned by the FCC for commercial wireless service (Brito and Ellig, 2007). Municipal governments erect the greatest barriers to entry for broadband providers. In order to construct Internet infrastructure, broadband providers have to be granted access to public rights-of-way to lay wire. In addition, broadband providers must come to terms with public utility providers to have access to utility poles or underground conduits (Szoka et. al, July 16, 2013). Fees charged by municipalities and public utility companies can increase the costs of constructing Internet infrastructure by between 20 and 100 percent. In addition, applications completed by firms to be granted permission to build often are held up for years before a decision is made (FCC, Reply Comments, Sept. 30, 2011). It appears the monopoly extracting rents is not the broadband providers but rather municipal governments and public utilities. Both have the power to determine the regulatory barriers those building Internet infrastructure face (Szoka et. al, July 16, 2013). Government regulation creates artificial barriers to entry that stifle competition among broadband providers. The solution to the problems with the Internet pointed out by network neutrality advocates is not to enforce regulation on broadband providers with monopoly power but to eliminate their monopoly power by lowering the existing regulations that keep competitors out. Not All Data is Created Equal, Nor Should it be Treated So The argument for network neutrality rests on the belief that all data is created equal and that all content providers should have equal opportunity to reach consumers. Advocates believe an Internet without network neutrality will create an environment in Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 10
11 which online content and applications developed by new start-ups will literally not be able to keep up with their established competitors. Pres. Obama wrote in his statement supporting network neutrality policy, We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas (Gayomoli, Nov. 10, 2014). In a more competitive market for broadband services, providers would most likely charge differential prices for different levels of access, but average prices would most likely also be lower (as they usually are in more competitive markets). 1 Data prioritization is a mutually beneficial exchange negotiated between broadband providers and content providers. The assertion that all data should be treated equally by network management policies does not acknowledge that quality of service matters a great deal more to certain content provider than others. Netflix negotiated a deal with Comcast to improve its download speeds to Comcast subscribers because the streaming quality Netflix customers experience is paramount to its profitability. The benefit Netflix gains by faster download speeds is considerably greater than the benefit this author would receive by increasing download speeds for his blog readership. This fact is clearly reflected in Netflix s willingness to pay for data prioritization. Neither regulators nor the public should be so quick to attribute different prices broadband providers charge content providers to anticompetitive business practices. Differences in price reflect the higher cost associated with providing higher quality service, as demonstrated in Figure 4 by the higher quality of service shown Netflix received after purchasing data prioritization from Comcast (Becker et. al, 2010). 1. Price theory suggests that prices will be lower in more competitive markets. See for example Mankiw (2007: 303). Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 11
12 The panacea for the Internet s ills is not to impose further regulation on broadband providers but to remove existing regulation, which makes entry into the market for broadband services difficult and therefore benefits existing producers, notably public rights-of-way regulations set by municipalities. Removing existing barriers to entry would result in an increase in competition in the market for Internet service providers and ultimately in lower prices and a better product for consumers. The economic literature has demonstrated that price regulations mandated by network neutrality can increase consumer surplus, but this is just one of many possible pricing schemes that are of greatest efficiency (Becker et. al, 2010). The positive network externalities present in the interactions between consumers and content providers may be such that the efficient outcome is for broadband providers to charge content providers a fee for access (Economides and Tag, 2012). These fees could allow for the reduction of subscription fees, which would attract more consumers to the Internet and incentivize innovation by both broadband and content providers (Becker et. al, 2010). Regulation is not the answer to maximizing the welfare of Internet subscribers. Rather, the key to maximizing consumer welfare and maintaining innovation among content provides is to take deregulatory actions that will allow broadband providers to satisfy growing demand for Internet content and the construction of improved infrastructure. Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 12
13 Bibliography Becker, Gary S., Dennis W. Carlton, and Hal S. Sider. Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare. Journal of Competition Law & Economics 6, no. 3 (Sept. 2010): doi: /joclec/nhq016. Brito, Jerry and Jerry Ellig, A Tale of Two Commissions: Net Neutrality and Regulatory Analysis. Commlaw Conspectus 16 (2007): pdf. Economides, Nicolas and Joacim Tag. Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis. Information Economics and Policy 24, no. 2 (June 2012): Federal Communications Commission. Open Internet. FCC.gov. Federal Communications Commission. Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: The Facts and Future of Broadband Competition. FCC.gov (Sept. 4, 2014). Federal Communications Commission. Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet NPRM. FCC.gov (May 15, 2014). Federal Communications Commission. Reply Comments of National Telecommunications Cooperative Association. In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment. FCC.gov (Sept. 30, 2011). view?id= Gayomoli, Chris. President Obama: The FCC Should Classify the Internet as a Utility. Fast Company (Nov. 10, 2014). Hahn, Robert and Scott Wallsten. The Economics of Net Neutrality. Economists Voice 3, no. 6 (2006): 1-7. Lee, Robin S. and Tim Wu. Subsidizing Innovation through Network Design: Zero- Pricing and Net Neutrality. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23, no. 3 (Summer 2009): Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principles of Economics. (2007). Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education Thomson Soth-West. McCullagh, Declan. Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls. CNET (Mar. 3, 2005). Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 13
14 National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Digital Nation Report Shows Rapid Adoption of Mobile Internet Use. NTIA.gov (Oct. 16, 2014). National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Number of Broadband Providers. National Broadband Map. Spangler, Todd. YouTube and Netflix represented more than 50% of downstream traffic during peak hours in September, according to study. Variety (Nov. 11, 2013). Szoka, Bevin, Matthew Starr, and Jon Henke. Don t Blame Big Cable. It s Local Governments that Choke Broadband Competition. Wired (July 16, 2013). This hilarious graph of Netflix speeds shows the importance of net neutrality. The Washington Post (Apr. 25, 2014). 25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/. Wyatt, Edward, and Noam Cohen. Comcast and Netflix Reach Deal on Service. The New York Times (Feb. 23, 2014). media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html. Regulation and Net Neutrality Kotrous 14
understanding what the bumper sticker means.
January, 2018 siepr.stanford.edu Policy Brief Net Neutrality: Changing Regulations Won t Kill the Internet By Gregory L. Rosston Over the past 25 years, the internet has grown and changed in ways, both
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 17-108 COMMENTS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY COUNCIL Introduction
More informationFrom: Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Legal Fellow J. Scott Holladay, Economics Fellow Date: November 2010 Re: Myths and Facts in the Net Neutrality Debate
MEMORANDUM From: Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Legal Fellow J. Scott Holladay, Economics Fellow Date: November 2010 Re: Myths and Facts in the Net Neutrality Debate The debate over net neutrality has been raging
More informationBroadband Competition Helps to Drive Lower Prices and Faster Download Speeds for U.S. Residential Consumers
Broadband Competition Helps to Drive Lower Prices and Faster Download Speeds for U.S. Residential Consumers Dan Mahoney and Greg Rafert 1 November, 2016 1 Dan Mahoney is an Associate, and Greg Rafert is
More informationNet Neutrality and Title II of the Communications Act
SIEPR policy brief Stanford University January 2015 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research on the web: http://siepr.stanford.edu Net Neutrality and Title II of the Communications Act By Bruce
More informationNet Neutrality on the Internet
Net Neutrality on the Internet Nicholas Economides Stern School of Business, New York University http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ NET Institute http://www.netinst.org/ mailto:economides@stern.nyu.edu
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE INSTITUE FOR LOCAL SELF-RELIANCE
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom WC Docket No. 17-108 July 17, 2017 COMMENTS OF THE INSTITUE FOR LOCAL SELF-RELIANCE I. Introduction
More informationEric Rasmusen Abstract
1 Net Neutrality, Double Marginalization, and Natural Monopoly in Internet Service April 20, 2018 Eric Rasmusen Abstract This paper explores two effects of net neutrality that might be expected to hurt
More informationRichard Hooper CBE Chairman of the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG) Tuesday 20 October, , Broadband World Forum 2015, Excel, London
Preserving the Open Internet the UK Approach Richard Hooper CBE Chairman of the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG) Tuesday 20 October, 1235-1250, Broadband World Forum 2015, Excel, London Introduction The
More informationAre Data Caps Reasonable?
Are Data Caps Reasonable? Scott Jordan Department of Computer Science University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697 sjordan@uci.edu ABSTRACT We discuss how data caps may be evaluated under the FCC
More informationFrequently Asked Questions: Lyndon Township Broadband Initiative
Frequently Asked Questions: Lyndon Township Broadband Initiative Q. What is the Lyndon Township Broadband Initiative? A. Citizens of Lyndon Township have asked the Lyndon Township board to address the
More informationNet Neutrality and Innovation at the Edges
Net Neutrality and Innovation at the Edges Mark A. Jamison Director Public Utility Research Center University of Florida 1 Context Blockage or degradation of VoIP Madison River Communications, LLC; Telmex;
More informationRegulatory approaches in the new digital environment
Panel Discussion: Business and regulatory solutions and strategies that will promote sustainability of the ICT ecosystem Regulatory approaches in the new digital environment 1. Introduction Telecommunications
More informationPublic Policy Goals Pleas e turn to the first major se ction of your testimony. Would you pleas e briefly
0 0 Public Policy Goals Q. Pleas e turn to the first major section of your testimony. Would you pleas e briefly explain the policy goals you feel s hould guide the Commiss ion's decision-making process
More informationRe: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings, Project Number P181201
August 18, 2018 United States Federal Trade Commission Office of the Secretary 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5510 Washington, DC 20580 Re: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century
More informationWhy We Should Expect Net Neutrality To Actually Reduce the Amount of Entrant Content on the Web
Why We Should Expect Net Neutrality To Actually Reduce the Amount of Entrant Content on the Web January 5, 2011 Eric Rasmusen Abstract The policy of Net Neutrality would require an internet service provider
More informationThe net neutrality debate: the end of the world (wide web) as we know it?
Agenda Advancing economics in business The net neutrality debate: the end of the world (wide web) as we know it? Do regulators need to impose constraints on the pricing structure of Internet service providers
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF FREE PRESS
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Petitions of Verizon Telephone Companies for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160(c in the Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
More informationFederal Conmiunications Commission Washington, D.C
Federal Conmiunications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 December 1, 2016 Robert W. Quinn, Jr. Senior Executive Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs AT&T 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington,
More informationNet Neutrality An issue for ex ante or ex post intervention?
Net Neutrality An issue for ex ante or ex post intervention? V Encuentro de la ACE - Madrid 2 nd November 2010 Pietro Crocioni * The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Ofcom. 1 Outline
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF VIASAT, INC.
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Connect America Fund ETC Annual Reports and Certifications Rural Broadband Experiments WC Docket No. 10-90 WC Docket
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Protecting ) GN Docket No. 14-28 and Promoting the Open Internet ) ) ) COMMENTS OF CONSUMERS UNION Delara Derakhshani
More informationGrey Nuances in the Black and White Debate Over Subsidized Internet Access
Grey Nuances in the Black and White Debate Over Subsidized Internet Access A presentation at the 39th Annual Conference of the Pacific Telecommunications Council Honolulu, Hawaii Jan. 15, 2017 Rob Frieden,
More informationThe Public Option: A non-regulatory alternative to Network Neutrality
The Public Option: A non-regulatory alternative to Network Neutrality Richard Ma Advanced Digital Sciences Center, Illinois at Singapore School of Computing, National University of Singapore Joint work
More informationRethinking Communications Policy: The Proper Scope of the FCC in a Broadband World HAL SINGER
Rethinking Communications Policy: The Proper Scope of the FCC in a Broadband World HAL SINGER Suggested Reading Need for Speed (Brookings Press 2013) Vertical Integration in TV Markets (Review of Network
More informationNetwork Neutrality: A global issue, or U.S.-specific?
Network Neutrality: A global issue, or U.S.-specific? J. Scott Marcus, Senior Consultant, WIK-Consult GmbH Zugangsfreiheit im digitalen Fernsehen und IP-TV Dusseldorf, October 30, 2006 0 Network Neutrality:
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of In the Matter of ) GN Docket No. 12-354 Amendment of the Commission s Rules with ) Regard to Commercial Operations in
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of SBC Communications Inc. and WC Docket No. 05-65 AT&T Corp. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control REPLY COMMENTS
More informationNET NEUTRALITY: ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MARKET DEVELOPMENTS
ABSTRACT NET NEUTRALITY: ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MARKET DEVELOPMENTS Timothy J. Tardiff * On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued new regulations for the Internet. A significant
More informationNetwork Neutrality on the Internet
Network Neutrality on the Internet Nicholas Economides Stern School of Business, New York University http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ NET Institute http://www.netinst.org/ mailto:economides@stern.nyu.edu
More informationZero-rating and net neutrality
Zero-rating and Net Neutrality CORE, Université catholique de Louvain TSE Digital Seminar 06/12/2017 A zero-rating example from France Bouyges: content from the video streaming website B.tv will not be
More informationUniversal Service in the 21 st Century
Universal Service in the 21 st Century By Martin Duckworth, Director, Coleago Consulting Ltd. This article was initially published in the ITU TELECOM ASIA 2004 Daily News and On-Line News Service. Executive
More informationREMARKS OF STEFANIE A. BRAND DIRECTOR DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL
REMARKS OF STEFANIE A. BRAND DIRECTOR DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL I/M/O the Board Investigation Regarding the Reclassification Of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Services as Competitive BPU Docket
More informationUnderstanding the Basic Economics of the Internet: Building a Foundation for 21 st Century Public Policy. John W. Mayo
Understanding the Basic Economics of the Internet: Building a Foundation for 21 st Century Public Policy John W. Mayo May 8, 2018 Policy questions abound What policies might ensure access to and use of
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Connect America Fund Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Issues Regarding Service Obligations for Connect
More informationPrinciples of Mobile Regulation with Application to Colombia. Jerry Hausman Professor Economics, MIT July 22, 2016
Principles of Mobile Regulation with Application to Colombia Jerry Hausman Professor Economics, MIT July 22, 2016 1 Principles of Regulation Goal of regulation is to protect consumers and competition not
More informationBEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 In the Matter of Connect America Fund ETC Annual Reports and Certifications Rural Broadband Experiments WC Docket No. 10-90 WC Docket No.
More informationCOMPTEL s Responses to Questions in Modernizing the Communications Act January 31, 2014
COMPTEL s Responses to Questions in Modernizing the Communications Act January 31, 2014 COMPTEL, the leading industry association for competitive communications service providers, submits its responses
More information"Managing the Network? Rethink Prices, not Net Neutrality." Scott Wallsten. October 2007
"Managing the Network? Rethink Prices, not Net Neutrality." Scott Wallsten October 2007 1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW SUITE 850 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 PHONE: 202.828.4405 E-MAIL: info@techpolicyinstitute.org
More informationPerspectives from FSF Scholars May 1, 2017 Vol. 12, No. 16
Perspectives from FSF Scholars May 1, 2017 Vol. 12, No. 16 Allow Paid Prioritization on the Internet for More, Not Less, Capital Investment I. Introduction and Summary by Theodore R. Bolema* Paid prioritization
More informationBroadband Openness Rules are Fully Justified by Economic Research
NELLCO NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository New York University Law and Economics Working Papers New York University School of Law 7-1-2010 Broadband Openness Rules are Fully Justified by Economic Research
More informationNTCA 2016 BROADBAND/INTERNET AVAILABILITY SURVEY REPORT
NTCA 2016 BROADBAND/INTERNET AVAILABILITY SURVEY REPORT July 2017 DISCLAIMER: Data from the survey has been presented as reported. To get more information on this report please contact Rick Schadelbauer
More informationilar in structure and in cost. Digital subscriber lines use part of the spectrum on copper telephone wires to provide high-speed service, while cable
JAMES H. ALLEMAN ROBERT W. CRANDALL 1 Introduction T he 1990s was the decade of the Internet and the stock market bubble, two phenomena that were likely related. After the bubble burst and the stock market
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF THE UTILITIES TELECOM COUNCIL
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Technology Transitions AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition Connect America Fund
More informationAnalysis of Proposed Network Neutrality Rules
Analysis of Proposed Network Neutrality Rules Barbara van Schewick 1 February 18, 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 I. To avoid the considerable social costs associated with evaluating behavior
More informationZero rating: free access to content, but at what price?
Agenda Advancing economics in business Zero rating: free access to content, but at what price? As the net neutrality debate rolls on, new areas of concern are being highlighted. One prominent topic is
More informationMaking doors open. Sebastien SORIANO Incoming Chair of BEREC (European telecom regulators) Chairman of Arcep (French telecom regulator)
Making doors open Sebastien SORIANO Incoming Chair of BEREC (European telecom regulators) Chairman of Arcep (French telecom regulator) A regulation designed to preserve an open environment Over the past
More informationCompetition in the Long-Distance. Telecommunications Industry
Competition in the Long-Distance Telecommunications Industry Industrial Organization and Pricing Thursday, May 1, 1997 By Robert Koch Introduction The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been in the focus
More informationCosts and Consequences
Despite reforms, telecom regulations are still costing consumers billions of dollars. Costs and Consequences BY JERRY ELLIG Mercatus Center Jerry Ellig is a senior research fellow for the Mercatus Center
More informationConsultation Brief on LMCS Spectrum Auctions in Canada
Consultation Brief on LMCS Spectrum Auctions in Canada by Ken Hendricks Department of Economics University of British Columbia Robert Porter Department of Economics Northwestern University January 26,
More informationfj) Cable Modems and DSL: Broadband Internet Access for Residential Customers By JERRY A. HAUSMAN, J. GREGORY SIDAK, AND HAL J.
fj) '-- I Cable Modems and DSL: Broadband Internet Access for Residential Customers By JERRY A. HAUSMAN, J. GREGORY SIDAK, AND HAL J. SINGER* To date, most residential customers to the Internet have used
More informationNet Neutrality to Digital Dynamism. Rohit Prasad MDI Gurgaon (joint work with Prof V. Sridhar)
Net Neutrality to Digital Dynamism Rohit Prasad MDI Gurgaon (joint work with Prof V. Sridhar) Orchha Weekly Bazaar Marketplaces Bring buyers and sellers together More buyers attract more sellers and vice
More informationAccounting for Innovation in Consumer Digital Services: Implications for economic growth and consumer welfare
Accounting for Innovation in Consumer Digital Services: Implications for economic growth and consumer welfare David Byrne, Federal Reserve Board Carol Corrado, The Conference Board and Center for Business
More informationComments are made only to paragraphs that are especially important for SVT to highlight.
BoR PC 01 (16) 042 BEREC Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules COMMENTS FROM: Sveriges Television AB, SVT SVT, a public service broadcaster is the leading
More informationSimple Competitive Internet Pricing
Simple Competitive Internet Pricing Jose Costa-Requena Networking Laboratory Otakaari 5, 02150 ESPOO, Helsinki FINLAND jose@netlab.hut.fi Abstract The Internet is free of charge by nature but since it
More informationNetwork Neutrality and Zero-rating
Network Neutrality and Zero-rating Barbara van Schewick February 19, 2015 Whether network neutrality rules should prohibit zero-rating i.e. the practice of not counting certain applications against users
More informationBIA Meeting about High Speed Internet July 5, 2016
BIA Meeting about High Speed Internet July 5, 2016 Cool and Connected an early program to develop a proposal, possibly in its last year as the money would have been spent. Email has gone out soliciting
More informationThe Economics of Net Neutrality
J O I N T C E N T E R AEI-BROOKINGS JOINT CENTER FOR REGULATORY STUDIES The Economics of Net Neutrality Robert Hahn and Scott Wallsten * Related Publication 06-13 April 2006 Robert Hahn is executive director
More informationNTCA 2009 BROADBAND/INTERNET AVAILABILITY SURVEY REPORT
NTCA 2009 BROADBAND/INTERNET AVAILABILITY SURVEY REPORT November 2009 DISCLAIMER: Data from the survey has been presented as reported. To get more information on this report please contact Rick Schadelbauer
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF CTIA
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely
More informationBUSINESS PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LAST UPDATED
1 BUSINESS PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LAST UPDATED 8-24-17 Overview The Broadband Business Plan is a high level planning document that outlines the data, assumptions, critical success factors, financials and
More informationGetting What You Pay For: Analyzing the Net Neutrality Debate
Getting What You Pay For: Analyzing the Net Neutrality Debate Mark A. Jamison Public Utility Research Center Department of Economics University of Florida and Janice A. Hauge Department of Economics University
More informationNETWORK NEUTRALITY the US and the EU perspective (31 May 06)
NETWORK NEUTRALITY the US and the EU perspective (31 May 06) I attended, last week, an academic seminar on Network Neutrality (NN). The agenda was broader than a simple focus on NN, because of the difficulty
More informationCRTC PRÉSENTATION
www.vaxination.ca/crtc PRÉSENTATION 8663-C12-201503186 Review of basic telecommunications services Examen des services de télécommunication de base. 27 April 2016 Jean-François Mezei 1 1 5/1 AND CANOES
More informationEconomic Evidence on Competition in Communications Markets and Implications for Key Policy Issues
December 11, 2013 Hon. Tom Wheeler Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Re: Economic Evidence on Competition in Communications Markets and Implications for
More informationWayne County, North Carolina
Wayne County, North Carolina Request for Information ( RFI ) For High Speed Internet/Broadband Services 1/1/2017 Proposal Submission Deadline: February 28, 2017 Mail or Hand Deliver RFI Documents To Primary
More informationTESTIMONY OF SCOTT WALLSTEN, PH.D. BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, COMMERCE, AND TRANSPORTATION U.S. SENATE APRIL 24, 2007
TESTIMONY OF SCOTT WALLSTEN, PH.D. BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, COMMERCE, AND TRANSPORTATION U.S. SENATE APRIL 24, 2007 1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW SUITE 850 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 PHONE: 202.828.4405
More information14.23 Government Regulation of Industry
14.23 Government Regulation of Industry Class 12: Preparation for Midterm Exam MIT & University of Cambridge 1 How to study for Midterm Exam Go through all numeric problems that were covered in classes
More informationNetwork Neutrality, Product Differentiation, and Social Welfare. A Response to Phoenix Center Policy Paper No. 24. A Policy White Paper Prepared by
A Response to Phoenix Center Policy Paper No. 24 A Policy White Paper Prepared by Trevor R. Roycroft, Ph.D. May 3, 2006 Roycroft Consulting Economic and Policy Analysis www.roycroftconsulting.org trevor@roycroftconsulting.org
More informationRe: Ex Parte Notice, GN Docket No , WC Docket No , GN Docket No
2025 M STREET, NW, SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 December 6, 2018 VIA ECFS Marlene Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Ex Parte Notice, GN Docket
More informationRobert C. Atkinson CITI
MARKET STRUCTURE FOR ULTRABROADBAND: Should We Expect Multiple, Competitive UBB Access Infrastructures or Regulated Monopoly UBB Utility? (or Something Else?) Robert C. Atkinson CITI April 4, 2008 Should
More informationtelecom regulation The stakes are high. The vision of the By Wolfgang Bock, Björn Röber, and Peter Soos
Reforming Europe s telecom regulation By Wolfgang Bock, Björn Röber, and Peter Soos The Boston Consulting Group recently completed a major study, commissioned by the European Telecommunications Network
More informationThe ISP Column A monthly column on things Internet. Internet Regulation: Section 706 vs Title II. October Geoff Huston
The ISP Column A monthly column on things Internet October 2014 Geoff Huston Internet Regulation: Section 706 vs Title II At the NANOG meeting in Baltimore this week I listened to a presentation by Patrick
More informationNet Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-sided Market Analysis
Net Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-sided Market Analysis Nicholas Economides Stern School of Business, New York University http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ and NET Institute http://www.netinst.org/
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WEAK VERSUS STRONG NET NEUTRALITY. Joshua S. Gans. Working Paper
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WEAK VERSUS STRONG NET NEUTRALITY Joshua S. Gans Working Paper 20160 http://www.nber.org/papers/w20160 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge,
More informationINTUG Position Statement on the European Commission s proposals following review of the European Telecommunications Framework.
INTUG Position Statement on the European Commission s proposals following review of the European Telecommunications Framework. Introduction The International Telecommunications Users Group (INTUG) was
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Lifeline and Link Up Reform and ) WC Docket No. 11-42 Modernization ) ) Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for
More informationMunicipal Broadband: The Business and Political Landscape
Municipal Broadband: The Business and Political Landscape Legal Seminars International Conference on Municipal Broadband Baltimore, Maryland July 10-11, 2003 Jim Baller The Baller Herbst Law Group, PC
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Broadband Provisions of the ) GN Docket No. 09-40 Recovery Act ) ) COMMENTS OF TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Steven N.
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment On ) GN Docket No. 18-231 The State of Fixed Broadband Competition ) COMMENTS
More informationSome key factors are within the control of a community... In other words, a community can make a real difference in whether a network gets built.
61k, BECOMING A FIBER TO THE HOME FIBER-FRIENDLY COMMUNITY Communities across the country understand the great value of gigabit broadband and are exploring how they can encourage the deployment of fiber-to-the-home
More informationRamsey Prices. Example: (due to K Train) Suppose a firm produces two goods with demand functions
Ramsey Prices If there are increasing returns to scale, then MC< AC. Efficient pricing usually requires that price equal MC. If this rule is used, the firm will have negative profits. What are the efficient
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC COMMENTS OF NCTA THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Communications Marketplace Report ) ) ) GN Docket No. 18-231 COMMENTS OF NCTA THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION August
More informationWritten Testimony of Jerry Ellig, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow Mercatus Center at George Mason University
Written Testimony of Jerry Ellig, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow Mercatus Center at George Mason University Submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate March
More informationPOLICY BRIEF ROUNDTABLE SERIES
POLICY BRIEF from the ROUNDTABLE SERIES 12 DECEMBER 2015 & 22 JANUARY 2016 **************** NET NEUTRALITY REGULATION ACROSS SOUTH ASIA **************** HOSTED BY CENTER FOR INTERNET & SOCIETY BANGALORE,
More informationNetwork Neutrality Regulation Across South Asia: A Policy Brief Towards an Evidence Based Research Agenda
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Internet Policy Observatory Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) 2-2016 Network Neutrality Regulation Across South Asia: A Policy Brief Towards an
More informationFCC Reporting Requirements for Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Receiving High Cost Support
FCC Reporting Requirements for Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Receiving High Cost Support CHR Solutions. All Rights Reserved. June 26, 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Five-Year Service
More informationcompetition, and the lowering of the contribution required from such services to maintain affordability and accessibility of local service.
Executive Summary This report traces the governance and regulation of the retail consumer services of telecommunications industry in Canada, from the inception of the regulation of telephone service by
More informationCONTRIBUTION TO GSR 2018 GLOBAL SYMPOSIUM FOR REGULATORS (GSR-18)
CONTRIBUTION TO GSR 2018 GLOBAL SYMPOSIUM FOR REGULATORS (GSR-18) The Supervisory Agency of Private Investment in Telecommunications (OSIPTEL) of Peru submits the following contribution on the topic of
More informationSummary of Survey Responses
Napa County Internet Survey Results Report Overview The Napa County Internet Survey was conducted in order to better understand what internet services area residences are using. A short survey was developed
More informationUPGRADING AMERICA: Achieving a Strategic Bandwidth Advantage and a Psychology of Bandwidth Abundance to Drive High-Performance Knowledge Exchange
UPGRADING AMERICA: Achieving a Strategic Bandwidth Advantage and a Psychology of Bandwidth Abundance to Drive High-Performance Knowledge Exchange Blair Levin Executive Director, Gig.U Fujitsu Conference
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION TO DENY OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company and NBC Universal, Inc. for Consent to Assign Licenses
More informationTESTIMONY OF JEFFREY A. EISENACH, PH.D. BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE September 17, 2014
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY A. EISENACH, PH.D. BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE September 17, 2014 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
More informationClear Creek County Broadband Survey Results
Clear Creek County Broadband Survey Results MARCH, 2017 Contents About NEO Connect... 3 Introduction... 4 Summary of Survey Results... 4 Residential Results... 4 Business Results... 5 Role of Government
More informationSensis e-business Report
September 2010 Sensis e-business Report The Online Experience of Small and Medium Enterprises Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 ABOUT THE SURVEY... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 4 LEVELS OF COMPUTER OWNERSHIP...
More informationCONSUMERS, TRANSPARENCY AND THE OPEN INTERNET
CONSUMERS, TRANSPARENCY AND THE OPEN INTERNET Testimony of Joel Kelsey Policy Analyst Consumers Union Before the Federal Communications Commission January 2010 1 Good afternoon. I would like to begin by
More informationTelecom Decision CRTC
Telecom Decision CRTC 2018-84 PDF version Ottawa, 7 March 2018 Public record: 8640-T66-201608408 TELUS Communications Inc. Application for forbearance from the regulation of billing and collection service
More informationNo. 169 Page 1 of No An act relating to protecting consumers and promoting an open Internet in Vermont. (S.289)
No. 169 Page 1 of 15 No. 169. An act relating to protecting consumers and promoting an open Internet in Vermont. (S.289) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont: Sec. 1. FINDINGS
More information